In recent years, the measurement of academic performance and research impact has become increasingly significant in global higher education. Among emerging platforms in this field is the AD Scientific Index, a rapidly growing global ranking system that evaluates researchers and institutions based on publicly available citation data. Today, under his leadership, the AD Scientific Index analyses the research performance of more than 2.6 million scientists from over 24,000 institutions across 221 countries, making it one of the world’s largest researcher-focused academic evaluation platforms.
Founded by Professor Murat Alper, the index has gained international attention for its transparent and inclusive approach to academic evaluation. In this interview, Professor Alper shares his insights on the motivation behind the index, its methodology, global academic trends, and the future of research assessment. Mohammad Fakhrul Islam, a researcher from Hungary, had an intensive interview with him:
Mohammad Fakhrul Islam: To begin with, what motivated you to establish the AD Scientific Index, and what vision guided its creation?
Professor Murat Alper: We founded the AD Scientific Index in 2021 together with Assoc. Prof. Dr. Cihan Döğer. We are both researchers who come from within academia, and for years we observed closely how existing evaluation systems left parts of the world’s countries, publications, languages, and disciplines invisible. Traditional rankings relied on reputation surveys, closed and paywalled databases, and a logic focused on only a few thousand elite institutions. Yet science is produced not at a handful of prestigious universities, but through the labour of individual researchers in every corner of the world.
Our vision was simple but ambitious: to measure scientific contribution where it is actually produced — at the level of the individual researcher. We wanted to build a framework that is transparent, inclusive, reproducible, and accountable. Today we analyze more than 2.6 million scientists and over 24,500 institutions across 221 countries. A young researcher in an African country and a professor at a long-established European university are evaluated by exactly the same criteria, on equal terms. For us, democratizing academic visibility is not a feature — it is the very purpose for which we were founded.
Islam: What key gaps in existing academic ranking systems or platforms like Scopus and Web of Science does the AD Scientific Index aim to address?
Professor Murat Alper: I value these platforms; each has made important contributions to science. But they have structural limitations. First, most are closed and paywalled; the visibility of a researcher or institution becomes dependent on access to expensive subscriptions. Second, they systematically under-represent non-English publications, the social sciences, and the humanities. Third, traditional rankings treat an institution as a single abstract unit and conceal the individual achievement within it.
The AD Scientific Index deliberately targets these gaps. We work with open, publicly verifiable data; we begin evaluation not from the institution but from the individual researcher, and institutional rankings emerge from the aggregation of that individual data. We do not produce a composite score with hidden weights. As a result, no institution remains invisible merely because it cannot pay for a database, and no discipline is penalized because its citation culture is different.
Islam: What are the core indicators and principles used in evaluating researchers and institutions?
Professor Murat Alper: We use three core bibliometric indicators: the h-index, the i10-index, and the total number of citations. What distinguishes our approach is that we calculate each of these over two separate time windows: across the entire career and for the last six years. This dual time window makes visible not only past accumulation but also a researcher’s current momentum. In this way we can simultaneously identify both established names who have left their mark over the years and rapidly rising young stars.
As for our principles: we do not build a composite score from these indicators through an opaque formula. Rankings derive directly from measurable data; anyone can trace why a given result came out the way it did. We consciously keep our work aligned, as far as possible, with the principles of Open Science. Transparency, inclusivity, reproducibility, and accountability — these four are our compass.
Islam: Since the index relies heavily on Google Scholar data, how do you ensure accuracy and address concerns such as duplication or inconsistencies?
Professor Murat Alper: First, one has to be honest: no bibliometric database is flawless or a universal ‘gold standard’. Both Scopus and Web of Science carry their own coverage and bias problems. We chose Google Scholar as a deliberate decision, because it has the broadest coverage, includes all languages and disciplines, and — most importantly — is a publicly open, verifiable source.
To ensure accuracy, we run a layered process: profile verification and claiming mechanisms, the flagging of unusual patterns, the tracking of anomalous spikes both manually and programmatically with the help of artificial intelligence, the removal of fake or duplicate profiles, and ethics and integrity checks. I would also emphasise this: transparency itself is a safeguard. In closed systems, an error remains hidden; in ours, because everything is traceable back to its data source, errors are visible and can be corrected quickly. We do not promise perfection, but continuous improvement and accountability.
Islam: How does the index ensure transparency, reliability, and credibility in its ranking methodology?
Professor Murat Alper: Our methodology is entirely public and contains no hidden weights. Anyone can reproduce why a researcher or a university holds a particular position simply by looking at publicly available profiles. This is not an ordinary detail; it is the essence of the system. In systems based on reputation surveys or closed peer opinion, it is impossible to verify results independently.
The second pillar of reliability is currency. Our data are refreshed almost in real time; we do not offer a snapshot frozen once a year. Credibility arises not from some mysterious authority but from traceability. We do not ask the user to trust us; we ask them to verify with their own eyes.
Islam: How do you respond to criticisms of the AD Scientific Index, and what misconceptions would you like to clarify?
Professor Murat Alper: I take criticism seriously; it is essential for a healthy system. The most frequently voiced concern is that Google Scholar profiles can be manipulated — for example through excessive self-citation or inflated profiles. My answer is this: through integrity checks and anomaly detection, we flag such cases and, where necessary, remove profiles; moreover, transparency makes manipulation impossible to conceal. Unlike closed systems, in ours a deviation is in plain sight of everyone.
There are two misconceptions I would like to clear up. First, the perception that ‘the ADSI merely copies Google Scholar figures’. No — we structure, verify, contextualize by dual time window and by field, and make the data analyzable. Second, the idea that a ranking is a final verdict on the worth of a person or an institution. What we offer is not a judgment but a decision-support tool. Metrics do not replace human judgment; they inform it.
Islam: In your view, what are the strengths and limitations of citation-based metrics in assessing academic and research quality and impact?
Professor Murat Alper: The strengths are clear: citation-based metrics are objective, comparable, scalable, and reflect real impact — the extent to which a work is used by others. For now there is no other practical way to compare millions of researchers fairly.
The limitations are also real, and we do not hide them. Citation culture varies greatly from discipline to discipline; medicine and the social sciences do not attract citations on the same scale. Citations accumulate with a time lag; recent work can be at a disadvantage. And a citation is not always synonymous with quality; it can also be manipulated. That is precisely why we rely not on a single indicator but on multiple indicators, on a dual time window, and on field sensitivity. As the Leiden Manifesto also emphasizes: quantitative evaluation should support expert judgment, not replace it.
Islam: How do you assess the current global distribution of research productivity across different regions?
Professor Murat Alper: Research productivity has historically concentrated around North America, Western Europe, and, in recent years, China. But the data show a clear shift: emerging economies are rapidly closing the gap. There is striking momentum in South and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and parts of Africa.
This is exactly where the added value of the AD Scientific Index emerges. Closed systems often fail to see the excellent researchers in these rising regions, because they fall outside the scope of the elite databases. Because we work at the individual level and with open data, we make talent visible in the most unexpected corners of the world. Global science is no longer single-centered; it is turning into a multipolar landscape, and we document this in real time.
Islam: How do you see artificial intelligence and big data transforming research evaluation and academic rankings in the future?
Professor Murat Alper: Artificial intelligence will transform this field profoundly. I see great potential in author disambiguation (name-similarity problems), in the detection of fraud and citation manipulation, and in analyzing impact semantically, beyond mere numbers. Big data makes real-time, field-normalized, and network-based evaluation possible.
But I have a caveat: artificial intelligence must serve responsible metrics; it must not create a new and even more complex ‘black box’. If we surrender evaluation to inscrutable algorithms, we merely reproduce the very transparency problem we are trying to solve. We use AI for verification and integrity; but we believe that ultimate accountability must remain with human beings. Technology should empower, not obscure.
Islam: What is your perspective on challenges such as predatory journals and citation manipulation in global academia?
Professor Murat Alper: These are serious threats to scientific integrity and must not be underestimated. Predatory journals artificially inflate output volume; citation rings and ‘citation cartels’ falsely boost impact. Such behaviour erodes not only rankings but also public trust in science.
I should add that steadily rising article processing charges (APCs) also contribute to this. Exorbitant APCs create a distorted incentive that rewards ability to pay over quality; they both feed predatory publishing and push researchers from countries with limited budgets into a disadvantaged position. This is as much a question of equity of access as it is a matter of scientific integrity.
Our response is two-layered. At the technical level: integrity monitoring, anomaly detection, and the flagging of suspicious patterns. But the deeper solution is cultural. At the root of the problem lies the ‘publish or perish’ pressure that rewards quantity. We need to move toward a culture that prefers quality over quantity and embraces responsible metrics. And, once again, transparency is the strongest antidote: manipulation can only survive in the dark; in open data it is exposed.
Islam: Looking ahead, how do you envision the future of academic ranking systems over the next decade?
Professor Murat Alper: I foresee a five-fold shift. From reputation to evidence; from the institutional level to the individual and the field level; from closed data to open data; from a snapshot frozen once a year to a real-time flow; and from a single magic score to a multidimensional evaluation.
Responsible-metrics frameworks such as DORA and the Leiden Manifesto will move from being the exception to becoming the mainstream. AI-assisted but humanly accountable systems will become standard. In short, the future belongs to more transparent, more inclusive, and more honest systems. We positioned the AD Scientific Index precisely for this future — because we were born with these principles; we did not have to adapt to them later.
Islam: Hungary has a strong academic tradition. How does Hungarian research performance appear in your index, and what strengths or gaps do you observe compared to other European systems?
Professor Murat Alper: Hungary displays an impressive scientific depth relative to its size — which is only to be expected from a country that has produced so many Nobel laureates. More than 70 institutions and over 30 universities appear in our index. Among those that stand out are Eötvös Loránd University (world ~502), the University of Szeged (~546), and the University of Debrecen (~569). Alongside these, institutions such as the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Wigner Research Centre for Physics, and ELI clearly demonstrate the strength in the basic sciences.
Its strength is a deep-rooted and high-quality tradition of fundamental research in the natural sciences, physics, and medicine. Compared with the largest Western European systems, the difference emerges in scale and in international visibility: quality per capita is high, but in some fields integration into global research networks could be strengthened further. For Hungary, the real opportunity is to combine its existing scientific depth with broader international collaboration and higher visibility.
Islam: How do you see European research performance reflected in the AD Scientific Index?
Professor Murat Alper: Europe performs strongly across all fields in our index; Western and Northern Europe in particular are among the established leaders. But what is truly interesting is the rise of Central and Eastern European systems. Our data show that the continent’s research map is not single-centered but increasingly diverse.
Europe is also a global pioneer in Open Science and responsible metrics. This aligns directly with our values. Europe’s strength lies not in a uniform kind of excellence, but in the rich diversity created by different countries specializing in different disciplines. Rather than reducing this diversity to a single score, our index seeks to make it visible.
Islam: Finally, what key message would you like to share with researchers, university leaders, and policymakers working to strengthen academic excellence and global research impact?
Professor Murat Alper: My message is simple: excellence is measured not by reputation but by real contribution, and every researcher, wherever they are in the world, deserves to be visible. So, start from the areas where you are already strong, but do not stay confined there; think on a global scale. Sharing your research openly, pursuing quality rather than quantity, and protecting scientific integrity under all circumstances — this is the path that turns local success into global impact.
To policymakers and university leaders in particular, I would say this: data is not an instrument of judgment but a tool for revealing our strengths and weaknesses and for structuring our system. Our aim is not to rank people and institutions in a table, but to hold up a transparent mirror in which they can improve themselves. Science is a shared global common that belongs to no single country or institution — and making it fairly visible is a responsibility we all share. Quality is not a destination, but a journey. Thanks.
If you missed it: Exclusive interview: QS founder Quacquarelli explains how Hungarian universities can rise in global rankings
